Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister to the House. If the Fianna Fáil election slogan "A lot done — more to do" applies to any Department or Minister, he will concede it applies to his own. A significant amount of work has been done and is in the preparatory stage but we have a long way to go until we have satisfactory statistics regarding road safety and deaths on our roads. Three or four weeks ago on a Monday night, I unfortunately attended the funerals of two people killed in separate accidents in my constituency. One was a middle aged man and the other was a young person. It struck me once again that we have not made sufficient progress in our battle against speed and road danger problems. In so far as the Minister has plans for the future, I want him to expedite them and bring about the necessary changes. The subject of road safety and driver testing is one which requires an ongoing debate.

No one can suggest that the penalty point system will not be a help in the long term. However, it has a distance to travel, if Senators will excuse the pun. I understand the Minister intends to introduce some of the other elements to the system and presumably they will be rolled out in the coming months. The complaints about the system which public representatives hear most frequently at present are made by people penalised for travelling at 31 mph in a 30 mph limit area or at 41 mph, 42 mph or 43 mph in a 40 mph limit area, often on the edge of a built up area. The imposition of points on such people who are marginally in excess of the limit is doing nothing to build a relationship between the Garda and citizens. Someone travelling at 31 mph, 32 mph or 33 mph, within 2% or 3% of the limit, is no greater a threat on the road than someone travelling at 30 mph. I suggest that a sizeable fine should apply to a person travelling within 3 mph or 4 mph in excess of the speed limit but that the penalty points would not be imposed in such circumstances.

We are told there is some degree of discretion — up to 5%. In other words, if a person is travelling at 33 mph or 34 mph in a 30 mph limit area or at 41 mph, 42 mph or 43 mph in a 40 mph limit area, the system may not trip in. I suggest that in those cases, people would pay a significant financial penalty but that the penalty points would not be applied, which would help achieve respect for the law. If one accepts the fact that the first 2 mph or 3 mph over the limit will result in a financial penalty rather than penalty points added to one's licence, it would ensure that one would not travel in excess of 2 mph or 3 mph over the limit. It would help resolve the bitterness which is creeping in. We have all met people who are very angry at having penalty points imposed for travelling at 31 mph, when they see people travelling on country roads at 60 mph, 70 mph and 80 mph, with no chance of penalty points being imposed on them.

I understand the Minister has proposals to examine the speed limit system, the main element of which is simply the metrification of it. When we examine the speed limits, which have been devolved to local authorities, we will have to take a serious look at the speed limits which do not apply on county roads. It is ironic that one can travel at the same legal speed limit on a county road — often a windy, twisty, badly surfaced county road — as one can on most of the Cork to Dublin road. It makes no common sense whatsoever and provides numerous opportunities for danger and disaster on the county roads, in particular where people are driving lorries and large vans and seem to have no respect for the fact that they are travelling on narrow dangerous roads. We must consider changing the speed limits on minor county roads. I appreciate that in theory one may be charged with the offence of dangerous driving on these roads. However, is it correct that one may legally travel at the same speed on the country road outside my house in a rural parish as on the Cork-Dublin road? That must be examined.

I support the point made by Senator Dooley to consider applying a maximum engine size to cars driven by young drivers and those with a provisional licence. Not every young driver or provisional licence holder is a dangerous or less safe driver than those driving for ten or 15 years but we have to address the issue in general terms. A provisional licence holder may drive a 2.5 litre turbo charged car on the highways and byways, and I do not think that is correct. We have to consider limiting inexperienced drivers to certain engine sizes. While it may not be appreciated, it might be the right course of action in the long run.

The National Roads Authority is establishing three or four pilot projects using a wire rope to divide a road into two carriageways. It is proposed to divide a ten to 12 mile stretch of the Cork to Mallow road with a wire rope. A company that supplies barrier as opposed to wire rope divisions provided figures on the cost variation between dividing a road with wire rope or the full protection barrier system. The wire rope system proposed by the National Roads Authority will cost 90% of the full barrier division protection system. I was also advised that the wire rope system should cost only 30% of the full barrier division system. I was told the National Roads Authority was being ripped off. Will the Minister check this? If the full barrier division system can be laid for an additional 10% of the cost of the wire rope system, this should be examined to get value for money.

I have raised the issue of road signage many times in both Houses and was assured the issue would be examined. We continue to use similar road signs to those of 40 to 50 years ago. People totally ignore these signs and fly through Stop and Yield signs as if they did not exist. There should be more marking on the road in addition to road signs. Will the Minister consider modern, hard hitting, dramatic and eye catching road signs?

My colleague, Deputy Kehoe, in answer to a question on the number of telephone calls to the traffic watch scheme that resulted in prosecutions, was informed that during the operation of a pilot scheme in the south eastern region from November 2001, of the 3,800 calls received, 1,000 drivers were formally cautioned, but only 30 prosecutions resulted, less than 1% of the cases. If we wish to encourage people to report dangerous driving, we will have to be more proactive. That only 30 prosecutions resulted from 3,800 calls shows the system is not working.